Will Trump Use The National Emergencies Act To Impose A Tariff On Mexico For Illegal Immigration?

Flag of Mexico

President Donald Trump declared on Thursday that he would impose a 5 percent tariff on all goods entering from Mexico unless it stopped the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. The move would set a dangerous precedent of mixing trade and immigration issues — further destabilizing the economy and isolating the United States. If this unprecedented move is based on the National Emergency Act, it would again push the law to its extremes. Yet, as I have previously written on the controversy over the wall construction, Congress unwisely gave presidents sweeping and largely unchecked authority.

The use of a tariff in this circumstance is deeply troubling from both a legal and policy standpoint. Trump is using trade to punish a country for a global problem of migration. Political, economic, and social forces all play a role in such movement. It is certainly valid to object to steps that countries like Mexico can do to prevent illegal crossings. However, Trump in the past has suggested that countries should effectively close their borders or restrict travel within their borders — moves that raise a host of legal and constitutional issues for those countries. Mexico has increased deportations by 300 percent but that has not stemmed the flow into the United States anymore than the United States has been successful in stopping them at the border.

The tariffs will kick in on June 10th and continue to ratchet-up higher until immigration is slowed. We are already in a worsening trade war with China, this could trigger another serious drag on our economy. Moreover, the fight with China has some legitimate elements. It is true that past presidents have utterly failed to deal with the trade deficit and that China has been a bad actor in the theft of intellectual property and the imposition of trade barriers. This is different. This is using trade to punish a countries for the unlawful actions of individuals across a long and largely guarded border.

What is also concerning is the return to impulse or improvisational policies. Once again White House officials seemed caught by surprise and there seems little foundation laid for this major change. Certainly Congress appeared largely unconsulted and Republicans have already come out in opposition. Like the first travel bans, this major diplomatic and economic move had little preparation or planning. Vice President Pence was in Canada on Thursday with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to discuss the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. This appeared to catch everyone by surprise and could not compromise those plans.

This is an area where Congress needs to act quickly and clearly to reverse this action. I am admittedly someone who is critical of tax and tariff policies being used for such broader policy goals. With the rising costs associated with the China trade war, this will take a bite out of consumer. Mexico exported $346.5 billion in goods to the United States in 2018. It will also do little to stop illegal immigration and could easily trigger a tit-for-tat trade war with Mexico. It is a uniquely bad idea in my view.

What do you think?

163 thoughts on “Will Trump Use The National Emergencies Act To Impose A Tariff On Mexico For Illegal Immigration?”

  1. The dirty little secret is that NOONE in Washington, including Trump, has addressed the main problem with illegal immigration, which is our fellow American business owners who hire non-citizens, and then don’t get punished for it.

    Most illegal immigrants actually come here to work. This MS-13 business, for which I appreciate needs to be taken seriously, is not the bulk of the problem when discussing the overall issue of illegals. Once businesses get the message that illegal hiring means jail time, this problem ends. And it’s well past time to acknowledge that.

    1. employment requires employers to prepare and keep on file form I-9.
      most payroll routines usually involve doing that when the w-2 is turned in
      at least that’s how it works in flyover land

      maybe the bigger problem is not with employment it is with contracting?
      requiring people to verify right to work with contractors is perplexing
      I don’t want to have to prep an I-9 form every time I make a simple service deal

      for example. you go to a mex restaurant, that’s not just sale of good but a contractual service too. the burden should not be on me to verify the workers in the kitchen.

      do you think you’ve ever bought food from a restaurant with illegals? i am sure i have since i have eaten in chicago a lot the past 30 years and most of the kitchens are full up with them. hell greek and chinese restaurants in chicago are probably mostly staffed with mexicans in the kitchen now too!

      and that is a competitive business. they have sketchy practices but without that the prices go way up. Maybe there is a geographic issue here. let’s see the big cities go around checking up on restaurants. um, no way Jose. they won’t ,,,, the issue here is becoming less one of what the law requires than the big cities just acting like the law doesnt apply to them. that’s my take.

      1. I don’t know how far the prices go up because there’s only so much the customer is willing to pay. And in any case, the price is not free-market in such cases. Setting that aside, are you using the word “contractor” as a type of outsourcing? In that case, the burden shifts to the business you outsource with. If the owner of a business contracts with another business that hires illegals, then that business is criminally liable.

        And in my view, law enforcement would be more efficient and more ethical in going after the people who hire as opposed to the illegals. While I don’t excuse the illegals, the American citizens who hire them are worse — both legally and ethically.

        1. outsourcing is using contract labor. not w-2 employment.

          so labor brokers provide the workers, the business pays the labor broker

          the labor brokers are indeed the ones with the I-9 recordkeeping responsibilities
          the often do not comply
          these kinds of labor brokers that supply certain employment sectors are not quite like the local temp agency hiring out secretaries. often these are kind of shady people

          take asian pattern of migration for an example. the “shitou” is a snakehead; that is kind of like an immigration purpose travel agent in asia, who does all kinds of stuff, most of which is legal in itself, but can involve fraud, which may then trigger human trafficking laws. the shitou will have a network of associates in the destination country who can provide housing and employment. they get paid a big fee back home and then pass money around however they have to in order to fill their end of the deal. a typical successful shitou can help people use legal means but they can set up illegal people smuggling means too.

          a coyote is word for a latin american people smuggler. that segment is a poorer population than most of the asian migrants so it will tend to use more illegal means. but getting employment at the destination is often part of the deal too from what i have heard.

          the restaurants in big cities are hiring from these migrant community connections and providing employment for tens of thousands of workers. there is pretty close to ZERO chance that USCIS is going to get the green light from local law enforcement in big cities to go round people up from restaurants

          However, it has been done in some red state cities or at least attempted with ‘multi-agency task forces investigating human trafficking” etc etc. Chinese have been the target and the pattern is to go bust a bunch of massage parlors and Chinese buffets. The result is rarely a single prosecutable case of “human trafficking” which is far more rare than those who quote the term pretend. Usually it is to try and steal the money ie “asset forfeiture” from the massage parlors and effectuate a handful of deportations from the restaurants in order to justify the dramatic law enforcement charade. The news papers report the raids but don’t report the lack of results on the back end. The Robert Kraft related parlor raids in Florida have been the exception to that general failure in reporting, in that the phony “human trafficking” excuse was unmasked and it was made clear this was just an attempt to score some indoor prostitution busts. It doesn’t even seem that any migration problems existed, but im not sure about that. Overall, a big embarrassment now for the cops.

          The problem is massive and complicated. Enforcement efforts here are difficult and expensive and can cause a lot of human misery that nobody local will like. What Trump is doing is super wise and that is leaning on the Mexican government to stop the problem at THEIR border which they are pretty good at doing. If you remember how they dealt with the Rebellion in Chiapas, it was pretty forceful and ruthless.

          Mexico can do what needs to be done to put the lid on Honduras migration and they can do it fast. And now they will! Make no mistake, what Trump is doing is smart. It will have an effect.

          1. “the labor brokers are indeed the ones with the I-9 recordkeeping responsibilities
            the often do not comply”

            And how many of them are in jail and easily could be without a lot of investigative expenditures? And I’m not claiming deporting illegals from a restaurant or massage parlor is the answer. Rather, the answer is arresting the owners of restaurant and massage parlors. They’re a smaller group of people than the illegals. And they’re worse than the illegals anyway,

            1. Also, a lot of the workers in small service businesses are actually contractors too, just directly with the boss with no intermediary type labor brokers. in theory they should receive a 1099. failure to comply with not filing a 1099 is rarely enforced.

              I wouldn’t really know how much of that kind of work comes through labor brokers versus just social networking. I guess the internet fills the niche now, old fashioned of me perhaps to talk about labor brokers at all. Going by the wayside for temp agencies too prolly

              I would agree with you that both parties are in on this thing. America has always had a deep thirst for migrant labor. Gangs of New York is a movie I much recommend. It’s not going to change much any time soon.

              the human trafficking “phenomenon” was intended on the Republican end to try and address some of this, without hurting American owned businesses too much. On the Dem end– Hillary was a huge advocate of denouncing foreign countries about HT– it was often part of the State Department “human rights” schtick of bullying supposedly evil foreign regimes. I observe Kamala Harris was a big promoter of anti-HT stuff. Now she pretends she was not.

              in practice it has become mostly about federally sponsored anti-prostitution enforcement. it has been targeted at other labor sectors hardly at all, like i said, i have seen a little bit of it aimed at restaurants, and not much else.

              i am not against prosecution of the existing laws against human trafficking where the evidence is solid. this can be used not only against foreigners but American pimps too. Gorilla pimps especially. That is a term of art, look it up. A very ugly thing. Most of all it is deplorable when it involves minors.

              The thing is, the phenomenon is actually a lot less than what it has been promoted to be, and evidence is usually lacking.

              Consensual adult sex work should not be targeted as some kind of special social scourge. That is preposterous in an age where celebrities become rich on indecency and where nearly any sort of obscene sex acts can be paid for lawfully so long as they are recorded on film for publication as pornography. A truly absurd and disgusting situation.


              If people really want to protect children, from all kinds of abuse, then they should direct sufficient funding to local child protective services budgets, which are often short handed in favor of a thousand other less meaningful spending priorities.

    2. SteveJ:

      Here in Southern CA, local governments give illegal aliens special privileges. They allow them to loiter in spots they choose designated for dayworkers looking for work. Where I used to live, I stopped going to a local store because the last time I went, a bunch of illegal aliens opened my truck doors and jumped inside, with my baby in his carseat. They were arguing with each other over who got to get in my truck, assuming I was looking for workers. Truck equals work. I speak Spanish, and I blistered their ears, and got very sincere apologies. They didn’t mean to make me feel like I was in the middle of a car jacking with my baby.

      Illegal aliens in CA are now given drivers licenses, and they are allowed to have car insurance with lower premiums and benefits than are required for legal residents and citizens. This was to address the extremely high rate of hit-and-runs of illegal aliens.

      Many illegal aliens work under the table for cash. Californians vote for just about anything that will raise the cost of doing business legally – higher minimum wage and the raise of raises across all skill levels that change requires, regulations, permits, corporate taxes…In general, California is hostile to business. Businesses who ask for proof of citizenship or work permits are targeted as racist by activists.

      And then, California activists and politicians enable illegal immigration. It has destroyed industries such as landscaping and child care for reputable, taxpaying businesses. If you actually pay all of those benefits that Californians voted for, you cannot compete with the businesses that pay illegals under the table. Landscapers, nannies, housecleaners, are virtually all run by illegal labor. It has sent shock waves through all the industries involved in commercial and residential building, repair, remodel, construction…Illegal aliens working under the table has affected the price of everything. Customers choose companies based on price, and that price is based on the slave labor of illegal aliens, who have become a caste of second class people in our country.

      Ever notice how the Democrat arguments sound eerily similar to their arguments in support of slavery, in an age past? Who will pick our vegetables? Who will watch our children? Who will do the dirty jobs? Our country thrived without slavery, and will do so without illegal immigration, too.

      If illegal immigration shut off, either the country would plow into ruin, or we would adapt. Somehow, someway, these jobs were done before illegal immigration became a crisis. If you watch Mike Rowe, legal residents and citizens are doing tough jobs across America just fine.

      As long as illegal immigration persists, we will have a caste system in America. It will be assumed that dirty jobs are for illegals or immigrants. Illegals will get paid under the table, not pay income taxes, yet benefit from tax refunds and other benefits, and they won’t enjoy any of the employee benefits that get voted for year after year. They get exposed to the most neurotoxic pesticides and herbicides on conventional farms, and there are thousands of people waiting to take their place if they complain. Even pregnant women work in chemically sprayed farms, and have high rates of birth defects, right here in America. It’s a bit like Animal Farm. If illegal immigration stopped, it would be harder to find people willing to work in unsafe conditions, and perhaps the safety would improve.

      There is an intense pressure on businesses to hire illegal aliens in order to be competitive. Those who don’t often lose contracts in competitive bidding, because the legal cost of labor puts them out of the running. Businesses who run illegal alien crews often don’t have the training or expertise that a legal crew would have. That’s why, as I drive down the street through our small town, I see all these ruined topped trees, mutilated by “gardeners” who think owning a chainsaw makes them an arborist.

      1. “Ever notice how the Democrat arguments sound eerily similar to their arguments in support of slavery, in an age past? Who will pick our vegetables? Who will watch our children? Who will do the dirty jobs? Our country thrived without slavery, and will do so without illegal immigration, too.”

        Karen, excellent way of wording exactly the mindset of Democrats. They are wannabee slave owners and propagate the idea of slavery in all different ways.

      2. Ever notice how the Democrat arguments sound eerily similar to their arguments in support of slavery, in an age past?

  2. JT: “…It will also do little to stop illegal immigration and could easily trigger a tit-for-tat trade war with Mexico. It is a uniquely bad idea in my view. What do you think?”

    I think you should stick to discussing the law.

  3. The timing of the Mexico tariffs has nothing to do with immigration (which is about to see a seasonal decrease due to the heat) and everything to do with changing the subject from Mueller’s statement saying Trump was not exonerated.

    1. Enigma – have you watched any of the interviews with Border Patrol discussing the record breaking busts that completely overwhelm their facilities? How they are releasing totally unvetted people into our country, hoping they will show up to court?

      Honestly, if terrorist organizations don’t take advantage of the hordes overwhelming our borders, it will be very surprising.

      I don’t think the answer to a problem is to hope that it gets better during the summer. A lot of people die crossing inhospitable deserts illegally immigrating here in the heat.

      As for making political hay – it’s all Game of Thrones in DC. Meanwhile, we citizens and legal residents are not having our best interests looked after.

      1. Most of those “record breaking busts” are people looking for someone to turn themselves into seeking asylum. I’m not just “hoping” traffic decreases during the summer. It happens every year.

        1. Yes in the old days coyotes just guided folks across the river and through the scrub to a transit location on a deserted highway

          now they give them a legal education along the way in how to make stuff up

          1. Out of curiousity, what do they have to learn to make up. That there are conditions (that the US is partially responsible for) causing them to flee?

            1. asylum requires that the basis for fear relates to something recognized in US law as legit

              just being poor, scared of general crime, is not sufficient basis for asylum under US law

              however if they say the right things, then they can make a plausible go of it.

              for example. if you are from Burma. Myanmar that is. You are poor and you sneak through the junge to Thailand. You cant get work in Thailand. But maybe can get a plane to Vancouver Canada. Sneak into US. trust me that’s a super easy sneak right there. Anyhow, then within a certain time must claim asylum.

              Wrong way: I am poor, I need to work!
              Right way: I am a Rohynga Muslim, persecuted by the Myanmar military junta because of my religion!

              One way is not a basis, the other is. You get it? Pretty simple but how would they know…. unless somebody tells them.

              So. Poor indios come up here, lets say they are from Guerreo. They want work. But the coyote (if paid enough for the extra advice) can explains to them “you have to tell them that you were persecuted by the evil mestizo government of Mayheeco because you are an indigenous aztec person. Tell them you barely speak Spanish. Say something in Nahuatl.”

              you can look it up. I am not going to spell out more than that how it works. i already say too much.

            2. “An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:
              Membership in a particular social group (Most LGBTQ individuals who apply for asylum qualify under this category)
              Political opinion.”

              Asylum seekers are supposed to stop in the nearest safe country, or find a port of entry and claim asylum. The caravans are passing multiple safe harbors, turning down offers to stay in other countries, and instead insisting on the United States.

              Most people come here for jobs. In addition, general violence in the neighborhood does not qualify for asylum. For instance, Americans who live in a gang neighborhood would not qualify for asylum in Sweden.

              Claiming asylum means they are released into the general population and given a court case. Fraudulent asylum cases have clogged the court system, creating a years’ backlog. This harms those who truly qualify for asylum. It also means that people are released into our country without a proper background check.

              We are going to pay for this irresponsible practice, so bad. It really worries me. Line cutting, in general, is also unfair to all those law abiding people going through our legal immigration system. It’s unfair.

              It is not a human right to demand to live in any particular country. I am not entitled to declare, I want to be a French citizen tomorrow! And next year, Germany had better let me in. After that, Denmark. I want to learn how to grow tulips. Each time, I declare I am entitled to every possible benefit each country can give me.

              We really are the entitled generation.

        2. Statistics show that the overwhelming number of those claiming asylum do not qualify.

          There are two loopholes through our legal immigration system. Claim asylum, skip deportation, put down roots, and then claim it’s unfair to be deported because they have lived here (illegally) for so long.

          The other is to bring a young child, the younger the better. It doesn’t even have to actually be your child. Then you will have advocates fighting for you to stay, illegally.

          The latter method is especially heartbreaking, because it puts vulnerable children at risk.

          In addition, illegal aliens pay thousands of dollars to Mexican cartels to smuggle them. It’s a billion dollar industry to the same people who string up journalists by their entrails, burn villagers alive in makeshift ovens, run human sex slavery rings, run guns, and smuggle drugs like fentanyl and heroin across the border. It funnels a lot of money into very bad people. The most impoverished people cannot afford to pay the cartels in the first place.

          I have never heard a good argument in favor of illegal immigration, only for legal immigration. Illegal immigration is irresponsible. It is also unjust to abuse our system, such as the current trend in fraudulent asylum claims.

          1. “Statistics show that the overwhelming number of those claiming asylum do not qualify.”
            If you keep changing the rules as to who qualifies. That’s an easy thing to make happen.

              1. the Chinese migrant population easily merited and had approved, tens of thousands of asylum cases under the one child policy and the specific Congressional recognition of persecution under the one child policy as a legit basis for asylum. There are still one child policy related asylum cases in process today, even as the policy has been eased slightly by the Chicoms.


                the problem we have now is pretty much the poor Central Americans breaking down the door here because they want JOBS. Poverty is not a basis for asylum.

            1. Enigma – what do you mean, keep changing the rules? They didn’t qualify under the original requirements for asylum. Trump is considering a new rule to try to address asylum fraud, but it has not come to pass yet. The proposed regulation would prevent asylum seekers from claiming asylum if they passed through a safe third country. The asylum process already states that in order to claim asylum, people should stop at the nearest safe harbor and apply from there. The caravans are refusing to follow that process. It’s defrauding the system. It would not stop asylum seekers from applying to other countries as a final destination from their first safe stopping point. For example, the Saudi Rahaf al-Qunun, fled to Thailand. Thailand was not to be her final stopping point, but she was going to claim sanctuary and apply for asylum in a Western country. When she was apprehended, instead of being able to file the normal way, she pled to the world for asylum, and was accepted by Canada. Another princess didn’t make it, and was kidnapped off her yacht. The last I heard, she hadn’t been heard from since. Those are dramatic scenes from real asylum seekers, not Central Americans just looking for work in a good economy.

              Politicians are losing power all over Europe because they enabled so much migration that it overwhelmed their systems, and the high numbers failed to assimilate. There were a lot of rape scandals from migrants coming from regions where the abuse of women was culturally acceptable. There are areas where Jewish people cannot walk anymore, due to the mass migration of people from violently anti-semitic countries. There is also the persecution of Christians.

              Like it or not, PC or not, there has been a backlash against the very leaders who expressed superiority to Trump and America.

              If we ignore this crisis, then we will likely see the same result here.

              The problem is that our border patrol and immigration courts are overwhelmed with illegal immigration. There is no single way to stop this. The courts are backed up for years. Border patrol doesn’t have the facilities to process everyone. People are showing up sick and dying from making crossings with savage cartels over inhospitable deserts. The status quo isn’t working. We’ve got to do something about asylum fraud that is clogging up the system, harming real asylum seekers.


              The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
              A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for asylum if:
              (a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail him/herself of that protection; or
              (b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement;
              provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.
              In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an applicant for asylum Member States may take into account Article 27 (1).
              It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.1 However, in accordance with the APD, those Member States which apply the concept are not required to examine whether an applicant qualifies as a refugee or for subsidiary protection status, where a country which not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant pursuant to Article 26.2 In other words, the Member State may consider such applications as inadmissible.

              Destination countries may have interests in reducing irregular movements. As such, the concept of first country of asylum may be seen as a potential deterrent to irregular movements by refugees. However, UNHCR notes that the causes of secondary movements are manifold and include, among other things, a lack of durable solutions, limited capacity to host refugees and a failure to provide effective protection in some third countries. Therefore, the assessment of whether a third country does constitute a first country of asylum requires a careful and individualised case-by-case examination.

                1. That’s not a repeated change to the rules, as you stated.

                  I’ve included a discussion on First Country of Asylum above. Trump is trying to address fraudulent asylum cases that have backlogged our courts for years, thus harming real asylum seekers. He is also fighting the caravans, which is one of the worst examples of entitlement in recent years. It is not a human right to demand to live in any particular country, as I stated above.

                  Is someone really an asylum seeker if they go through country after country, all offering them safe harbor, and instead insist on the United States, and that they have to reside there during the process?

                  I am concerned about any measure that could harm real asylum seekers, as you probably are, too. Any change to the rules would have to include careful study on that concern. We need to combat the fraud clogging up the system, because that harms people who are in serious danger.

                  I am not aware of any other change to asylum regulations, though.



                  1. Please note that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers do not qualify under the rules that have long been in place:

                    Fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, belong to a group (i.e. LGBT), or political opinion.

                    For example, women advocating for women’s rights in the Middle East, and targeted for death, may qualify for asylum in the US.

    2. Trump has no particular interest in downplaying anything with regard to the Russia farce or anything connected with it. Pelosi is quite right. It would not bother Trump in the slightest for Democrats to start formal impeachment proceedings or in other ways drag this issue into next year — which may happen anyway because there may well be a finding of improper conduct by the F.B.I. The longer this issue drags out, the better politically it is for Trump.

    3. Ha, ha. Enigma is acting as a comedian except it isn’t funny and is dull. Mueller’s statement will be handled when the documents are realeased, charges are brought against certain people or when those people start singing which has already begun.

        1. “Mueller’s statement contained nothing not in his report.”

          Then there was no rational reason for him to speak except as a partisan which proves his partisanship throughout the investigation. This type of statement was inappropriate for a special counsel and demonstrates that he is less the man than many thought he was. Here we have a man who didn’t need a 400 page report. All he needed was a finding but he couldn’t provide that leaving it up to the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General.

          I think his behavior should be investigated, not because of his findings rather because of how he went about it. I don’t expect any agreement from you because your partisanship doesn’t leave room for you but to agree with anything that strays from your personal desires.

            1. remain silent or remove all doubt.

              Once again enigma goes with the latter.

              1. Enigma is absolutely correct about Barr misrepresenting the report. Mueller not only said that in a letter to Barr but by what he emphasized in his statement. The fact that so many Trump supporters were taken back and in fact ignorant of what was in the report until Mueller’s statement speaks to the effectiveness of Barr’s PR campaign and the almost one month following when it was the only thing known about the report other than Trump’s unchallenged lie that it proved “no collusion, no obstruction, totally exonerated”.

            2. Enigma,
              There was nothing to stop Mueller from reaching and presenting a conclusion on both “collusion” ( shorthand for illegal conspiracy) with the Russians, and the issue of obstruction.
              He decided to present a determination on one, but not the other.
              Then claim that “the work speaks for itself” and step offstage.
              Barr can’t do that; he’s already testified before Congress, has granted some access to to media, and hasn’t said “my work speaks for itself” in reaching conclusions.
              Since Mueller chose not to present a conclusion on obstruction, it’s appropriate for the DOJ to make it.
              The difference is that Barr has already given repeated testimony and statements, and Mueller has hauled ass.
              So in a very real sense, Mueller has dumped this into Barr/ Rosenstein’s lap, who did make a determination. ( Rosenstein, of course, stayed on through the conclusion of the OSC Report, then through the conclusion of the DOJ determination).

              1. L4D says–Given any ordinary target, a prosecutor’s choice is to indict the target or not to indict the target.

                For a sitting President, Mueller’s choice was NOT to indict Trump and exonerate Trump or NOT to indict Trump and DO NOT exonerate Trump.

                Mueller’s choice is crystal clear. Mueller did not indict Trump and Mueller did not exonerate Trump. You don’t have to like it. You do have to lump it, though.

                1. Barr’s testimony on this matter was “crystal clear”; Mueller was free to make and announce a determination of whether there was a criminal offenses committed by Trump, IRRESPECTIVE of DOJ policy re indicting a sitting president.
                  At the end of the day we got a cop-out from Mueller, then a
                  bugout by Mueller.
                  That may be satisfactory for some. Obviously, it’s not everyone’s perception that this is what a Special Counsel function is supposed to be.
                  But then, the “Mueller was Marine” crowd will accept it.

                  1. L4D says–Then who needs special counsel regulations in the first place? Why not just have The Attorney General investigate Presidential misconduct or NOT investigate Presidential misconduct–depending upon whether the President wants his or Her misconduct to be investigated or DOES NOT want his or Her misconduct investigated?

                    I’m pretty sure Barr would go for that . . . until . . . You know what? Let’s have special counsel regulations for Democratic Presidents only. Whenever a Republican is elected President the special counsel regulations are temporarily nullified pending the election of the next Democratic President.

                  2. Tom, that is laughable bulls..t. Mueller’s decision that the DOJ policy did not allow him to find for the guilt of the President is irrelevant to the spin Barr put on the report, including even lying about that reasoning. That he then took almost a month to release the report allowed his bulls..t to lock in the public’s mind and for some immune to the damning details it contains. This is evident in the near shock, though mostly silence from the Fox and Daily Caller consuming public who believed the “no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration” lies of Trump.

              1. You really had to twist your mind to come up with that. Mueller didn’t represent what Barr said, he just acknowledged Barr lied his ass off.

                1. Which is how he misrepresented what Barr said.
                  The difference is that Mueller went “straight to bunker” after lobbing his accusations and presenting one conclusion and one non-conclusion.
                  He knows that Barr can’t and won’t do that.
                  It’s a reasonable expectation that if someone accuses someone else of distorting their work, they’d stick around to make their case rather than disappearing.
                  Not only did Mueller fail to make a call on the “obstruction issue”, he dumped it into Barr’s lap, put Barr in a situation where he had to make a decision, made a couple of “snitty”🤭 comments about Barr’s decision, then walked away.
                  There is an expections to that a Special Counsel will reach conclusions after a 2 1/2+ year investigation,and given Mueller did not present a conclusion on obstruction, Barr and Rosenstein did it for him.

                  1. L4D says–Had Mueller “concluded” that Trump obstructed justice, Barr would have over-ruled Mueller’s “conclusion” that Trump obstructed justice. We know that because Barr over-ruled Mueller’s decision NOT to exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

                    The time is long since past due for Trumpers to learn how to lump it. Lump it, real good.

                    1. L4D says–Did I say “over-ruled”? I meant to say [“redacted” for Rule 6(E) Grand Jury material.]

                      So! Had Mueller “concluded” that Trump obstructed justice, Barr would have redacted Muller’s “conclusion” for Rule 6(E) Grand Jury material.

                    2. More valuable insight from our resident psychic on what ” would have” happened.

                  2. Alan Dershowitz offered he was willing to give Mueller the benefit of the doubt until this last performance.

                    The whole exercise has been about protecting Justice Department lifers who were happily doing dirty work for the Democratic Party. It’s a reasonable inference that Rod Rosenstein saw the jig was up when Barr came on board.

                    A just resolution of this is that Andrew Weissman gets disbarred. Not expecting anything, of course.

                  3. Mueller worked for Barr and like every other Trump official, wasn’t allowed to say shit until he resigned.
                    There is als a very stupid Justice Department ruling saying he couldn’t indict a sitting President and the belief it would be unfair to charge him without the ability to fight back in court.

                    1. It’s not a ‘stupid’ rule. We have a unitary executive.

                      That aside, he has nothing to indict Trump for, and he knows it.

                    2. “Individual 1” has already commited indictable crimes for which his personal lawyer is serving time. How can you disassociate the man that ordered the crime and paid for it? That’s the tip of the iceberg. Why do you imagine he’s fighting so hard to hide his finances?

                    3. Enigma, Mueller isn’t saying s*** AFTER he resigned….it might damage his tall, gaunt, and silent image

                    4. Enigma, this article concerns migration. Do you have any thoughts on migration? Or just the Russian whatever thing?

                      Question, if I may. How do you feel about illegal immigrants taking the jobs of the least educated native born american workers?

                      I have been told a long time that the least educated native born american workers are black men. one would think that a well educated black man would be concerned about his own kind who were less fortunate than himself, and have some concern about illegal immigrants taking the jobs of native born black men with little education and few marketable skills. I don’t mean to be offensive, I will be pleased to read as a long a reply as you will share on the subject.

                      I’ll try and check back later and see if you had a meaningful reply to the subject or did you just want to talk about Meuller things some more. If it’s more Meuller stuff I won’t bother to read it that’s for sure.

                    5. It will likely be Thursday before I can give you the complete answer you’re looking for. The cndensed version is that the low-skilled immigrants working in agriculture in rural areal aren’t displacing a high percentage of black low skilled workers who live in urban areas as opposed to the country. The reasons for low skilled black workers in urban areas are complex which is why it will take me until I get some time to give you a full answer. Charter schools are part of the problem and not the answer.

                    6. Mr Kurtz – I finally got a few minutes to respond to the article you wanted me to look at. Since you asked respectfully, and because I’ll write about this elsewhere on Medium and get paid for it, I’ll oblige you.

                      The initial premise of the article is that no group has been more affected economically by immigration than African Americans. Reading further, the authors says it’s because black people were brought here as involuntary immigrants. In what amounts to a sleight of hand, he notes slaves were placed primarily in the South and tied to that economy when in reality, their virtually free labor was the reason the South prospered economically. I would disagree somewhat with the premise they were placed in the South. In 1809, the US banned the International Slave Trade, over 50 years before the Civil War as a form of protectionism to keep the price up of domestic slaves. They were able to keep up the suppy due to breeding farms in Richmond and Maryland Eastern -Shore where black women were forced to breed as much as possible. Sometimes with large black males, others with their masters. Once the children were old enough to be separated, they were sent to Southern states which helped that geographic placement much more than where ships landed.
                      What the article also states is that current immigrants in the low wage market, primarily from South of the Border, aren’t taking jobs from black people who are primarily in urban areas but are working in rural areas.
                      My thoughts are that illegal immigrants aren’t hurting black people to the same degree as mass incarceration, the school to prison pipeline, defacto segregation of schools (which are not equal) and the current openly acceptable right to suppress votes, Gerrymandering, disparity of wages and job discrimination. Migration only works because there are employers who depend on the cheap labor it provides. If the US were serious about stopping illegal immigration, it would make the penalty so severe for employers they wouldn’t hire them, that isn’t happening. How much of a fine will Trump golf courses pay for their illegal workers? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/undocumented-workers-trump-golf-course-labor-abuses.html
                      You asked my opinion and relative to other things, migration isn’t a huge issue to me. I am concerned greatly about the cruel separation of children from families, the inability to get transparency about the number of children/adults dying in custody, the focus on immigrants of color while ignoring others, Hope this answers your question?

                    7. ok great, thanks, i’ll be pleased to read your thoughts Enigma

                1. The idea favored by partisan Democrats (including Andrew Weissman) is to indict the President for obstructing the obstruction investigation. The obstruction investigation was a self-licking ice-cream cone.

        2. Here is something from the Powerline blog that Enigma can think about.

          “Here is my question. (I know it has been asked before, but it can’t be repeated too often.) If Mueller’s charge was to investigate “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election…[including] investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” why didn’t he look into the possibility that the false information fed by alleged Russian insiders to an agent of the Clinton campaign was a disinformation effort by the Russian government, meant to interfere in the 2016 presidential election–an effort in which the Clinton campaign colluded?

          There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Steele dossier was exactly that, while there never was any evidence at all that the Trump campaign colluded in any way with Russians. So why was Mueller’s investigation confined to the wrong campaign?

          The question answers itself. Mueller’s mission was the same as Christopher Steele’s mission, and Glenn Simpson’s, and Perkins Coie’s, and Hillary Clinton’s: to destroy Donald Trump, by hook or by crook. That is the only explanation for Mueller’s seeming myopia about his own failure to look for collusion where, in all likelihood, it actually existed.”

          1. L4D says–Trump fired Manafort before the FBI started investigating Manafort. Trump fired Carter Page before the FBI started investigating Carter Page. It is not immediately clear when, if ever,Trump fired George Papadopoulos–except that, if Trump did fire Papadopoulos, it happened after the election. Meanwhile, Trump didn’t fire Flynn until over a month after Trump was inaugurated.

            When you say that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election against Trump, you are necessarily saying that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election by investigating two people whom Trump had fired from the Trump campaign before the FBI started investigating them and one person whom the FBI did not start investigating until after the election. And leaves only Papadopoulos who may still have been a member of the Trump campaign at the time that the FBI was investigating him.

            Guess what? Christopher Steele knew not one damned thing about George Papadopoulos. The Steele dossier has not one damned thing to say about George Papadopoulos. For that matter, the Steele dossier says nothing about Flynn, either. And that leaves you with Carter Page and Paul Manafort. Both of whom were fired from the Trump campaign before the FBI began investigating them.

            Maybe Trump used the Steele dossier to fire Carter Page and Paul Manafort. But, if so, then Trump didn’t get the Steele dossier from FBI headquarters in Washington D. C. before Trump fired Carter Page and Paul Manafort. The FBI headquarters didn’t get the Steele dossier until September of 2016–well after Trump had fired Carter Page and Paul Manafort.

            1. Diane, you haven’t said anything worthwhile. The Steele Dossier was BS and promoted by the Clinton campaign and possibly Clinton. Soon we will see the FISA signatures and reasons.

              You have been wrong from the start gradually changing what you say which is wrong as well, so why should anyone bother to take you seriously

              1. L4D says–The FBI did not surveil Manafort under any FISA warrant while Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager.

                The only member of the Trump campaign who may have been “spied on” while he was a member of the Trump campaign is George Papadopoulos. And the “spying” on Papadopoulos had nothing to do with FISA warrants nor the Steele dossier.

                1. L4D says–P. S. Are you seriously suggesting that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign before there even was a Trump campaign?

                  Or are you merely sarcastically suggesting that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign before there even was a Trump campaign?

                  1. Look, stupid, I challenged your bull**** claim that “Trump fired Manafort before the FBI started investigating Manafort”. That statement is incorrect. My comment didn’t say anything about the dates of the FISA warrants, but you changed the subject to FISA warrants to cover up your blunder in the comment I challenged.
                    I don’t catch all of your chicken**** stunts, but I happen to see your weasel words here when I was looking for something else.

                    1. L4D is getting under Tom Nash’s skin again.

                      Deep breaths, Tommy. Deep breaths.

                    2. I suppose you can take some satisfaction that establishing yourself as a lying sack of **** for two years is annoying, L4D. I’ve read a lot of comments by a lot of people over the years, and I’ve never seen anyone so dedicated to serial lying and games-playing.
                      So for what it’s worth, congratulations. I won’t bother trying to keep tabs of how many lies you spit out over the next two years and million word.

        3. Enigma:

          A few things greatly concern me about the Mueller report. First, if Mueller felt he could never come to a conclusion of criminal activity, then why in the world would he have taken on the investigation in the first place? What was the point?

          As has been pointed out, finding evidence of criminal activity is a separate step from an indictment. In fact, such a conclusion of evidence would predicate impeachment.

          His reasoning that it wouldn’t be fair to find a conclusion of crime to a president who would not have the recourse of court to prove his innocence did not hold water. Implying he engaged in criminal activity did the same thing. We were due an analysis of the evidence, just like any prosecutor. A prosecutor’s job is not to exonerate anyone, but rather, to determine if there is sufficient evidence of a crime.

          Another troubling feature is that Barr stated, under oath, that Mueller told him 3 times that he did not refuse to come to a conclusion on obstruction because the recommendation is not to indict a sitting president. Barr said Mueller told him they were still formulating their reason. Wouldn’t the reason have come before the concluding statement??? He asked him 3 different times and got the same answer. Others were in the room. Barr was under oath. Mueller was not under oath in his strange publicized statement, and he never addressed Barr’s statements.

          This is really important to find out why there is a disparity.

          1. Barr lied multiple times under oath and refused to answer many other questions. How many Trump officials who testified would you bet your life savings were telling the truth?

            1. “Barr lied multiple times”

              Enigma, your nose is growing. You know that what you are saying is a lie or you would repeat those lies and prove it.

                1. “Did William Barr lie to Congress? ”

                  There is not a single item in that report that proves Barr lied to Congress. That is why you refer to a spin report rather than demonstrating how he lied. That is pure foolishness.

                1. One doesn’t have to go far to see that anonymous lacks the intellect to make her case. Here is the title of the article. It shows once again that anonymous lacks the intellect to make her point.

                  “Did the Attorney General Commit a Crime by Lying to Congress?
                  Nancy Pelosi thinks so, but the relevant statutes suggest she is wrong.”

            2. Enigma – that’s the thing. How do we know that Barr lied? He was under oath, Mueller was not. Mueller never mentioned the conversation with Barr at all. If Barr actually lied, why didn’t Mueller address that?

              There were other people in the room at the time, per my understanding.

              I think that this is a very important point that needs to be investigated. Either someone is lying, or Mueller, upon reflected, changed his mind and went with the recommendation that a sitting president not be indicted as his reasoning for not coming to a conclusion.

              And if he was going to be prohibited from coming to a conclusion on criminal activity, then why did he agree to do the investigation in the first place? It seems pointless. In addition, his reasoning for it being unfair to the President doesn’t make sense, because the cloud of the report, not saying either way, did the same thing. Plus, a finding of sufficient evidence to support a charge of criminal activity would be the first step in impeachment.

              Mueller isn’t making any sense, and we need to know if Barr was telling the truth or not.


              1. Karen, too bad Barr refused a subpoena to appear before the House so that question could be asked. Both he and Mueller should be supoenaed to appera and clear the issue. If Barr refuses again, send the House Sergeant at Arms and arrest him.

                1. Barr did testify and he didn’t refuse to reappear. He refused to reappear in front of people that weren’t directly responsible to the people. People like you love Kangaroo courts but Bob Barr is not a Kangaroo.

                2. Barr has made himself available to both Congress and the press to a far greater extent than Mueller. But I don’t think Barr is interested is interested in participating in any more in more forums featuring showboating by 2020 presidential candidates.

                  1. Barr ignored a legal subpoena from the House. He should be in the House jail right now.

                    Numerous other subpoena’s have been ignored by the WH and DOJ and the DOJ just refused to release documents requested by a federal judge.

                    1. I don’t know if the House can compel an Attorney General to testify to a committee’s lawyers. That’s one issue.
                      Another is the circus-like atmosphere on Barr’s previous appearance(s) before Congress.
                      Barr seems to be a lot smarter and a lot tougher than Jeff Sessions; he will push back against Congress when Committees are playing games.

    4. i dont think so enigma. it is delivering on an election promise



        1. There’s nothing about illegal immigration which comports with economics and the free market.

          1. L4D says–If that were true, SteveJ, then the immigrants crossing the border truly would be asylum seekers. Wouldn’t they?

            Bullwinkle says, “Not that economics lesson; this economics lesson.”

        2. Trump should not have declared that Mexico would pay for the wall. Dictating what you want like that before you’re at the negotiating table renders your goal out of reach.

          In any case, illegal immigration costs our country billions of dollars. The savings from shutting off illegal immigration would be significant. The estimated cost of the wall ranges from $12 billion to $36 billion, and of course raising questions on our broken government procurement system and lack of competitive bidding. In any case, the vacation train boondoggle from LA to San Francisco is now estimated to cost upwards of $100 billion. I think that is why the wall figure never bothered me.

          The cost of illegal immigration is difficult to track, since there are many areas where we don’t ask for citizen status. Estimates range from $2 billion to $19 billion annually, and those may be wildly underestimated.

          If we were to completely remove all illegal immigration, we would pay for the wall in 1 to 2 years. Of course, border security would reduce illegal immigration. It wouldn’t solve the problem of all the line cutters already here.

          1. “If we were to completely remove all illegal immigration, we would pay for the wall in 1 to 2 years. ”

            If we completely removed illegal immigration, some of our industries including agriculture would collapse. Mar -a -Lago would collapse and Trump golf courses.

            1. If we completely removed illegal immigration, some of our industries including agriculture would collapse.

              In your imagination only. Illegal aliens might account for 3% of the workforce and they’re not a source of high-value-added-labor. What would happen in the agricultural sector, of course, would be a series of substitutions: machinery for manual labor, one crop for another crop. Another change would be an adjustment in wage and salary scales in the agriculture sector. Wage positions in agriculture, btw, number fewer than 400,000. The vast majority of illegal aliens work in services.

              1. Tell it to Trump’s businesses which have a long history up to the present of hiring illegals.

                1. Trump lives according to the rules of the times. You and your Democratic friends don’t. Trump doesn’t do the hiring and our nation was neglectful when it came to illegal aliens. Thus one has to assume the building trade had illegals. You and Democrats like to complain but so far only Trump is trying to stop illegals. You are disingenuous and speak out of both sides of your mouth.

            2. Enigma, ironically, you are using the same arguments that Democrats used in support of slavery.

              They used to say that crops would rot in the fields and everyone would starve without slave labor.

              As you know, that turned out not to be true.

              If our country cannot function without a second class caste of illegal immigrants doing the dirty, unsafe, underpaid, jobs without any of the benefits that people keep voting for to protect legal migrants and citizens, then our country needs to adapt. It’s no excuse to allow this to continue.

              We cannot keep funneling billions of dollars into the coffers of the vicious Mexican cartels, who then become stronger at running guns, trafficked women and children victims of pedophiles, drugs, etc.

              When I was a kid, teenagers made money mowing lawns, washing cars, and working as caddies. Somehow, our economy didn’t collapse under that system. With video game/smart phone addictions and a growing sense of entitlement glueing young people to their parents’ couches, being considered dependents until age 26, it will be difficult to get more young people back doing entry level, unskilled work. Is that an excuse?

              1. I would add that I’m sympathetic to migrants. I’ve known many good people who are first generation migrants, both legal and illegal.

                The responsible way forward is to improve our legal immigration system, logistically choosing skilled or unskilled levels based on need, job market, housing availability, infrastructure capacity, and adjust those numbers regularly. It should be an intelligent, adaptive process. At the same time, we need to remove both the push and the pull for illegal immigration. To reduce the pull, make it harder for illegal immigrants to live and work here. Enforce eVerify. Remove benefits for illegal aliens such as reduced auto insurance, drivers licenses, dispensations for loitering laws for day workers, and public benefits programs. Illegal immigrants should not qualify for benefits, starting today onward. We need to find a humane way to deal with those already here, brought here as a child. Children need to no longer count as a free ticket to skip the legal immigration line. We need to address anchor babies, which tempt heavily pregnant women to cross the border at the last possible moment.

                To reduce the push, see what we can do to improve conditions in their home countries. Nation building doesn’t work. Geopolitical maneuvering may help. We are facing off with Russia over who will rule Venezuela. Madura is dragging his people down into starvation and mass death, refusing international offers of humanitarian aid. Russia is propping him up, and they are all in. The US made a small step to support his opponent, but we haven’t committed. As it stands, the entire population of Venezuela, bar a few highly placed government officials and military commanders, may starve to death. It is possible that Venezuela may be the Archduke Ferdinand that sparks the next World War, or perhaps another Cold War.

                1. “Be all that you can be…” by posting numerous lengthy comments on a daily basis…

                  …but it’s all because of that dastardly Affordable Care Act.

                2. Karen, your proposals have been rejected by Trump, even as part of deal to get him wall money. Why would you support him?

                  1. “Karen, your proposals have been rejected by Trump”

                    Anon, that is a lie. Actually Trump and Karen have a lot in common in the way they wish to deal with illegals enterring out country.

                3. Karen,
                  Good posts.

                  BTW, did you know that you could break up your posts into multiple bite-sized posts that accomplish two objectives: 1. they would be more appealing to the attention span of the toddlers on this blog. 2. You’d rack up more frequent poster miles.

                  1. That sounds like a good idea. I don’t check length before I post, which ends up with lengthy comments. Too long.

              2. “They used to say that crops would rot in the fields and everyone would starve without slave labor.
                As you know, that turned out not to be true.”

                Actually, the South did it’s best to duplicate slave labor for decades. The first thing they did was not tell slaves in the Western areas like Texas that slavery was ended until after an important cotton harvest, this was with Federal Government cooperation. Google, “Ju eteenth” for more info. Then they instituted a form of sharecropping where the expenses borne by the newly freed slaves kept them in nearly the same position. They made crimes of virtually every activity for which the sentence was working for free in the fields. The only thing keeping freedmen safe in the South (and able to vote and own property) was the presence of Federal Troops. These were removed in The Compromise of 1877 for which Democrats gave up their apparent victory in the Presidential Election for the removal of those troops. The next year, that President, Rutherford B. Hayes, enacted Posse Comitatus disallowing certain activities by Federal Troops on U.S. soil which was to make sure the Army never protected the rights of black people again. This doean’t apply to the National Guard and there are a couple exceptions. I’m getting off track but those crops would have withered had not the South found various ways to replicate their cheap labor. The Party of Lincoln, looked the other way except of course the times they joined in to legalize various laws. They effectively ended Reconstruction, defaulting on their founding values, all for Rutherford B. Hayes.

                1. Enigma – that is my point. Democrats enabling and supporting illegal immigration, using many of the same arguments they used for slavery, is another attempt at creating a caste system of cheap labor.

                  Illegal aliens enjoy none of the worker protection that the states keep voting for. It’s wrong. It also creates racism. As illegal aliens increasingly take over the unskilled jobs, and those that are exposed to the most pesticides, people get a subtle bias against such jobs as “jobs for Mexicans” or “illegal alien jobs”.

                  Kids used to mow lawns for money, but now they assume that it’s illegal alien work. This is not healthy for our culture.

                  It is possible to farm without illegal aliens. Working on organic farms is becoming more popular, for example. Another is to use a temporary guest worker program for invited, honored guests, who go home after the picking season.

                  It seems strange to posit that any country would be unable, or too elitist, to do certain jobs unless we use a second class caste of citizens without worker protections.

                  If we cannot adjust to legal immigration only, and require illegal immigration to survive, then we’ve got bigger problems than the Mueller report.

                  1. “. It also creates racism. ” I submit the racism wasn’ t created, it alreadt existed. There are many ways to do jobs without using illegal aliens. Many businesses are pushing for legal immigration, kind of like that used at Mar-a-Lago and Trump golf courses, to supplement the illegal ones that work at the golf courses at least. I could find a link, but then again so could you if that mattered to you.

  4. Politically, it’s a good maneuver by Trump. Here is a short youtube clip that shows Chris Mathews making some sense on 2016 election night with regard to 3 issues, none of them having anything to do with Russians taking over the country.

  5. NPR business show viewpoint this morning Re. Trump’s brilliant plan to tax Mexico into submission: Many US companies export parts/materials to Mexico (3rd world hell hole, FIFY). Such parts are assembled into things like motor vehicles, Mexico’s #1 export to the US.

    Trump’s tariff shall hurt the above described exporting US companies. Then the kicker at the end, in Q form: “Who is the #1 such US company? GM, whose stock is down 4% today.”

    NPR is just one of A million shills for our over lords, in this case bringing us a little theater to scare Americans into hating Trump, AGAIN.

    Did anyone reading this force by gun point GM to fire Americans and close American factories in favor of Mexico? GM moved to Mexico to SAVE money, period. When GM moved to Mexico, was Mexico shipping 100k illegals/monthly over the border? NO!

    GM, their share holders, and Obama for saving GM can suck eggs and go to hell in a hand basket! Let God sort out the winners.

    If GM doesn’t like it, reopen the US factories.

    1. Princess T.,
      Actually, the GM stockholders got wiped out. ( I wasn’t one of them, but I’ve owned stock a few times in companies that have gone bankrupt. The stockholders rarely end up with anything)

  6. Will Democrats support the idea that welfare programs be protected from illegals. According to some on this list they should have no objection since they don’t believe the welfare programs are impacted.

    “Vast numbers of non-citizens and their families take advantage of our welfare programs. Today, 78 percent of households headed by a non-citizen with no more than a high school education use at least one welfare program. And nearly 60 percent of all households headed by a non-citizen do so.”

    Memorandum at:

    1. “Will Democrats support the idea that welfare programs be protected from illegals…they should have no objection since they don’t believe the welfare programs are impacted….”

      Possibly the two most brilliant sentences to appear on this blog! B.R.A.V.O.!

    2. Will democrats support the Constitution? The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.

      Congress has the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare. General welfare being roads, water, trash pick-up, sewer, electricity, etc.

      Congress has the power to regulate merely trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” to preclude bias or favor by one state over another, deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to regulate any and all other aspects of free enterprise.

      The right to private property precludes any act by Congress to claim or exercise dominion over private property including, but not limited to, rent control, fair housing laws, non-discrimination laws, etc. Governmental dictatorship over private property and private free markets is irrefutably unconstitutional.

      Article 1, Section 8

      The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

      To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

  7. American communists and Mexican parasites have abused the border for dilution through invasion, illegal drug importation and the international redistribution of jobs. All good things must end.

  8. There is something that I don’t think many people who don’t live in a border area know about. The govt. is actively letting people into the country, with full knowledge, who would be considered terrorists. I ask myself why that is all the time.

    This situation looks like a case of cementing power in the presidency which is then manipulated (not just Trump but whatever figurehead is appointed to the slot) by those who run this nation behind the scenes.

    Both the Constitutional issue of wrongful presidential power grabs and the strange cases of actively letting terrorists cross in through the southern border are smokescreened by screams of “illegals”. “illegals” are not taking away our freedom. This rogue govt. is.

  9. Illegal immigration is an existential problem, in the entire West. All of those world leaders who sneered at Trump are now either getting forced out, or facing serious problems, due to massive migration. It’s too much. It stems from countries with values diametrically opposed to the West. When you import people from regions that are anti-Semitic, kill gays, abuse women and view them as second class citizens, then they bring those beliefs with them. Crimes in those categories have skyrocketed, predictably, with massive migration from these regions. It is occurring in a tidal wave so large, that it changes the host countries. Jews are now unable to walk many streets of France and Belgium. Germany counseled Jews not to wear Jewish garb for their own safety. According to statistics, anti-Semitic comments come from both Neo Nazis and Muslims, but the majority of violence comes from Muslim migrants who came from violently anti-Semitic countries. Why wouldn’t this happen? When a few people migrate from countries that begin their day with “Death to Israel!”, they would face pressure to assimilate. When massive amounts of people come from such countries, they Balkanize, and retain those anti-Semitic behaviors.

    Sometimes, they even get elected into the US Congress.

    Mexico enables illegal immigration. Much of its economy flows from ex-pats illegally immigrating to the US, and sending money home. The cartels have corrupted their governments, and illegal immigration is a multi billion dollar industry for the vicious cartels. In addition, Mexico aids invasive Migrant Caravans on their way to illegally immigrate to the US. Mexico should use its own illegal immigration laws to try to stem the tide of migrants crossing over to the US.

    Mexico may be making an effort at deportation, but they are all over the news aiding the caravans, who are behaving as entitled invaders. We do not have the room, housing, health care, or benefits infrastructure to take 7 billion people from the world. We would no longer be a Western country if we became overwhelmed with non-Western migrants. A proper amount can be assimilated and successful here. Too many, and we would be overwhelmed.

    Trade may or may not be the way to go. Whenever we negotiate anything with a foreign country, their harming our country would come into play.

  10. Trump Has Become the Democrats’ Great White Whale – American Greatness Victor Davis Hanson

    One way of envisioning the Democratic obsessions with Donald Trump is as an addiction. We have seen the initial impeachment efforts; the attempt to get him under the emoluments clause, the Logan Act and the 25th Amendment; the Russian collusion hoax; the Mueller investigation; the demand for his tax returns; and the psychodramas involving Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. Relentless progressives have needed a new Get Trump fix about every two months.

    More practically, their fixation also substitutes for a collective poverty of ideas. The Democratic Party has no plan to secure the borders other than to be against whatever Trump is for. They would not build a wall, deport illegal entrants, end sanctuary cities, fine employers or do much of anything but allow almost anyone to enter the U.S.

    The homeless crisis is reaching epidemic proportions in our cities, almost all of them run by progressive mayors and city councils. None have any workable plan to clean the sidewalks of needles and human excrement. None know what do with the hundreds of thousands who have camped out in public spaces, endangering their own health and everyone around them due to drug addiction and inadequate sanitation and waste removal.

    On abortion, the new Democratic position seems to be that the unborn can be aborted at any time the mother chooses, up to and including the moment of birth.

    The Green New Deal has been endorsed by most of the current Democratic primary candidates, even though they privately know its utopian fantasies would shut down the U.S. economy and destroy the present prosperity fueled by record energy production, deregulation, and tax reform and reduction.

    Abroad, were Democrats for or against abrogating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and prodding China to follow reciprocal trade rules? How do they propose to deal with North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles that seemed to suddenly appear as Barack Obama left office?

    Have Democrats proposed canceling the new pipeline construction that Trump has fast-tracked? Would they scale way back on the natural gas and oil production that has made America energy-independent and on the cusp of becoming the world’s greatest energy exporter?

    Democrats have occasionally talked of implementing reparations for slavery, a wealth tax and free college tuition, and of eliminating college debt, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Electoral College. Yet they have never spelled out exactly how they would enact such radical proposals that likely do not appeal to a majority of the population.

    Would they reverse Trump tax cuts, stop hectoring NATO members to pay their promised defense contributions, restore NAFTA or revive the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

    For now, no one has much of an idea what Democratic candidates would actually do, much less how they would do it.

    Instead, the fallback position is always that “Trump stole the 2016 election,” “the Mueller report did not really exonerate Trump of collusion and obstruction,” and “Trump must be impeached or somehow stopped from finishing his first term.”

    When the Mueller report found no collusion and no indictable grounds for obstruction of the non-crime of collusion, for a moment progressives suffered an identity crisis. The temporary paralysis was prompted by the terror that without a crusade to remove Trump, they might have to offer an alternative vision and agenda that would better appeal to 2020 voters.

    The Democratic establishment has become something like novelist Herman Melville’s phobic Captain Ahab, who became fatally absorbed with chasing his nemesis, the albino whale Moby Dick. The great white whale once ate part of Ahab’s leg, and he demands revenge—even if such a never-ending neurosis leads to the destruction of his ship and crew.

    Democrats can never forgive Trump for unexpectedly defeating supposed sure winner Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then systematically—and loudly—undoing the eight-year agenda of Obama.

    So far, Trump seems to have escaped all of their efforts to spear and remove him before the 2020 election. Trump, like Moby Dick, seems a weird force of nature whose wounds from constant attacks only seem to make him more indestructible and his attackers even more obsessed with their prey.

    Even if the quest to destroy Trump eclipses every other consideration and entails the destruction of the modern Democratic Party, it seems not to matter to these modern Ahabs.

    Getting Trump is all they live for—and all they have left.


      1. Karen, Hanson is one of the best opinion writers. He writes several times a week. On the off chance you haven’t read him before. The Hoover Foundation sends me notices when he or others like Andrew McCarthy have a new op-ed. Hanson is an expert of Greek history and just wrote a book on WW2 that is on my list for reading.

          1. “my professors were all brilliant but they had no wisdom.”

            That sums everything up. Wisdom and common sense are lacking in the Democratic Party.

            1. it’s an interesting interview!

              check out his other videos, the interview with michael franceze is a good one too

              this patrick bet david guy, i like him. real go getter

  11. “It is certainly valid to object to steps that countries like Mexico can do to prevent illegal crossings.”
    Hate to say it but this is the mindset of lawyers who somehow equate “objecting” with doing. Lawyers object and leaders do. The supreme virtue of governing is doing something as I’ve said here for years. You can be wrong or right but inaction, when action is called for, is the only unforgivable sin. See Hoover, Herbert.

    1. mespo again, his favorite pastime, applauding the avoidable WW2, which directly resulted in the post-war death of 100 million innocents in the USSR, eastern Europe, and Asia.

      But it established Izra-HELL, which makes it all good!

      Bravo, mespo, NOT.

      1. applauding the avoidable WW2,

        Princess Trohar is pissed that Adolf was interrupted before he’d killed off the last third of European Jewry.

      2. Avoidable WW2? I suppose those heroic guys on the Arizona should have moved faster on deck as the attacking Japanese dropped bombshell after bombshell that Sunday morning. Right?

        1. “Princes Trohar” is a holocaust denying anti-semite. and now apparently a Hitler apologist. I guess she forgot about the Japanese.

          1. I’m impressed she elevated Hoover to a WW2 wartime President even though he left office in 1933. She’s got moxie … oops she wouldn’t like that word!

  12. I think it’s creative governing and puts pressure where it should since the Mouse of Representatives cares more about impeachment that doing the nation’s business. Why is JT so worried about Mexico? And to suggest trade and national security (because it’s not about immigration but illegal invasion) are mutually exclusive realms is, to paraphrase Jefferson, seek what “never was and never will be.”

    1. Mespo, the House has passed well over.100 bills since the democrats took over. What has the Senate and the president done legislatively?

      1. Anon writes: “the House has passed well over.100 bills since the democrats took over.”

        Congress can pass cr-p bills all they want but that doesn’t mean they did anything that was good for the nation. What have they done to pass a law directed specifically at stopping illegal entry into the country? Nothing. They are playing politics and looking towards 2020 while the nation suffers.

        1. The previous House ( 115th Congress) passed 442 bills.
          I don’t know that volume=productivity in either case.

  13. O.T but important. Italso shows this government’s willingness to violate the rule of law.

    GENEVA (31 May 2019) ‑ A UN expert who visited Julian Assange in a London prison says he fears his human rights could be seriously violated if he is extradited to the United States and condemned the deliberate and concerted abuse inflicted for years on the Wikileaks co-founder.

    “My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” said Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture.

    “I am particularly alarmed at the recent announcement by the US Department of Justice of 17 new charges against Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act, which currently carry up to 175 years in prison. This may well result in a life sentence without parole, or possibly even the death penalty, if further charges were to be added in the future,” said Melzer, who was also following up on earlier concerns for Assange’s health.

    Although Assange is not held in solitary confinement, the Special Rapporteur said he is gravely concerned that the limited frequency and duration of lawyers’ visits and his lack of access to case files and documents make it impossible for him to adequately prepare his defence in any of the complex legal proceedings piling up against him.

    “Since 2010, when Wikileaks started publishing evidence of war crimes and torture committed by US forces, we have seen a sustained and concerted effort by several States towards getting Mr. Assange extradited to the United States for prosecution, raising serious concern over the criminalisation of investigative journalism in violation of both the US Constitution and international human rights law,” Melzer said.

    “Since then, there has been a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation against Mr. Assange, not only in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom, Sweden and, more recently, Ecuador.” According to the expert, this included an endless stream of humiliating, debasing and threatening statements in the press and on social media, but also by senior political figures, and even by judicial magistrates involved in proceedings against Assange.

    “In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.”

    Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment.

    The team were able to speak with Assange in confidence and to conduct a thorough medical assessment.

    “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.

    “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.

    “I condemn, in the strongest terms, the deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted on Mr. Assange and seriously deplore the consistent failure of all involved governments to take measures for the protection of his most fundamental human rights and dignity,” the expert said. “By displaying an attitude of complacency at best, and of complicity at worst, these governments have created an atmosphere of impunity encouraging Mr. Assange’s uninhibited vilification and abuse.”

    In official letters sent earlier this week, Melzer urged the four involved governments to refrain from further disseminating, instigating or tolerating statements or other activities prejudicial to Assange’s human rights and dignity and to take measures to provide him with appropriate redress and rehabilitation for past harm. He further appealed to the British Government not to extradite Assange to the United States or to any other State failing to provide reliable guarantees against his onward transfer to the United States. He also reminded the United Kingdom of its obligation to ensure Assange’s unimpeded access to legal counsel, documentation and adequate preparation commensurate with the complexity of the pending proceedings.

    “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law,” Melzer said. “The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!”

    1. Thanks, Jill.

      The U.S. and others will go to great lengths to destroy Assange and anyone else who reveals the secrets and lies of those in power. What’s happening is despicable.

      1. It’s too bad Tulsi Gabbard applauds Roe and 60M (10x the alleged Judaic “holocaust”) unborn American deaths. Tulsi said she’d pardon Assange and Manning. I’d pardon Assange, but less sure about Manning.

        You gotta be pretty dumb to join the US military thinking you are making the world a better place.

    2. Nils Melzer
      UN Special Rapporteur on Torture; Human Rights Chair, Geneva Academy; Professor of International Law, University of Glasgow


      For the record: I never said I considered #JulianAssange „a bad actor“ but that, initially, I had been affected by the same misguided smear campaign as everybody else, and only saw the real facts once I investigated in detail @isaacstanbecker @wapo


      “There’s no chance he’ll get a fair trial in the U.S.,” Melzer said. “That’s where I draw the line.”

  14. RSA

    NO E-Verify = more flooding of illegals, but most people here still support Hitler wannabe & his New American Nazi Party.

    1. That may be! but this is a valid incremental increase in pressure. I applaud the tariffs.

  15. We are dealing on the fringes of the problem which is the massive number of illegals that cross our borders daily. The fault lies with Congress who should be sealing up the border with simple laws. The Democrats are playing deadly politics with American lives.

    1. The president has been offered plans by congress both before and after the democrats took it over, but he doesn’t know how to make a deal,.nor will he do the hard work of coming up with a serious plan or listen to those who have. It’s a campaign stunt for him, proposing a wall that would take years to build as the answer to a self described “emergency”‘ You guys buy it.

      1. “The president has been offered plans”

        Bull! The President has been offered political plans not plans to solve the most crucial problems of the nation. The Democrats have done everything they can to prevent any solution solely aimed at benefitting the country. Everything they do is aimed at 2020 while the country suffers.

        Put up or shut up. What non political proposal have the Democrats proposed? Provide the House number so the legislation can be viewed by all.

        You are vacuous.

        1. Allen you ignorant slut. The immigration plans offered to Trump – one with Lindsay Graham as the head of the congressional delegation and the one Schumer and Pelosi offered were not passed legislation so there is no “number” They were deals which were compromise necessary to get passed. Trump sucks at deals and walked away and got nothing.He still has no plan other than playing fools like you, and so far that is working.

          1. “Allen you ignorant slut.”

            I believe they have a number when a bill is introduced so that it can be located. You just don’t have the information available and talk through your a$$. What you say is pure Bull $hit mixed with error and lies. Once challanged you run away like the coward you are.

  16. Another look over here moment for Trump’s benefit and no one else. He does not care who and what he hurts, if it’s good for him, then so be it.

    1. “He does not care who and what he hurts”
      And you, Pelosi and your fellow America hating, destroy the country at all costs 21st Century Nazis DO care?
      My cousin was savagely beaten, gang raped and shot to death in Tucson by four illegal invading Democrat foot soldiers, one of whom was in the country illegally for the 5th time. Does the fact her husband and 4 children ages 5 thru 14 are AMERICANS mean they are NOT hurting? Are you saying being on the Democrat “expendable for the cause” list mean the acts committed against them are NOT crimes, that they are NOT victims of savagery, their pain is not real, their pain is not valid or worthy of consideration and that they are NOT entitled to any kind of protection from more of that fundemental change the Democrats promise? You are telling us that their mother and wife should have paid for Pelosi and the Democrats political machinations with her life.
      Who exactly in your little hate filled violence loving world are the ones who are to be sacrificed on the great Democrat Agenda alter and who are the ones who are to he immune from being held accountable?
      What makes you think it is the job of Trump to stand down and let it happen?

      1. Amen Dawn. It’s pathological to favor others over your own innocent fellow citizens. And when that sentiment extends to foreign criminal gangs it’s masochism.

  17. BOTH major parties support MORE illegal immigration because their owners want cheap labor & more customers & the middle & lower classes here bear the costs.

  18. The President doesn’t use his power for the benefit of the American people, It’s all about showing he is a “strong man” . Why should he bother with the niceties of the law or even traditional norms. He sees himself as a dictator hemmend in by the Constituon and democracy. No worries thought the Republicans are fine with it. And so it continues

      1. Did you know that these reported “executions” in N. Korea are often fake news? Check out moonofalabama’s post in his own blog. Don’t be so gullible.

  19. Congress could fix this mess in 15 minutes. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen, So let’s do nothing. Yeah, that’ll work.

Comments are closed.